accomplished." this is a long-term process. i think that already is a healthy environment in which to think about the future of libya and what this means for the alliance. when you step back and think about the alliance will -- role preventing a humanitarian disaster, particularly the kind of disaster that would have taken place in benghazi at the start of this, has really put libyans in control of their own destiny. and it has done so without a single alliance casualty. it has done so with the europeans taking the bulk of the weight of this operation. and it does so in the context of one of europe's greatest crises ever.

a thing that is a pretty remarkable outcome. and it is a pretty laudable outcome. we have to deal with the reality we're in, not a perfect environment. that is what i take away from this. the lesson from the libyan operation for the alliance, clearly you can never underestimate future surprises. there is a summit in november 2010. this was nowhere on the radar screen. and yet, the alliance is soul- searching, wondering if they can wind down in afghanistan without inflicting too much damage on the alliance, and here is another military operation which what's inconceivable at the outset -- which was inconceivable at the outset. they can act when there is political will to do so. the corollary to that, it was

driven by national leaders. this was president sarkozy of france, prime minister cameron of the u.k.. their political capital leadership helped at the start. at the beginning of this, it was not immediately apparent nato would be the organization to take the sun. it had its hand in afghanistan as i just mentioned. there is not a lot of enthusiasm between the coalition of the willing led by france, for example. it turns out that nato was the only instrument available. it was messy at the beginning, but it took 10 days to get to the decision for the alliance to take command. it was a little messy, but not bad. the other thing and took away

from this is how important policy has been over the years. adding there was a lot of thinking this would have to be of french-led operation. there was a lot of rhetoric out there. it was not the nato allies who checked themselves. it was the swedes'. uae. they said, wait a minute. we know how to work with nato. we do not know how to plug into a french-led coalition. today when a note sits around the table to discuss libya, it's it's around the table with morocco, jordan. i think that is of incredible significance.

as much as we are concerned about the role of small allies in europe, many demonstrated their utility here. if you look at what denmark, norway did, even belgium. de deigns to 25% of the strike -- the danes took 25% of the strike teams. said many of our smaller allies can when push comes to shove. the other thing -- there was someone inside the government that work very hard on the french normalization of the alliance. this is the first time friend says really been able to achieve national objectives -- french authorities have really been able to achieve national objectives through the alliance.

@ think it is significant for the -- i think it is significant for the the french relationship with the alliance. i do think at the same time, you have to be sober about what we are seeing. clearly, this magnifies secretary gates's farewell speech in brussels. there were problems with sustainment. i think it will become very clear that the europeans day, the trajectory they are on the would not be able to conduct in libya the vaught years from now. i hope that serves as a wake-up call, a take away that ships of the debates on european defense

spending keeping this was a very significant nato operation and the united states were not at the forefront. but the united states had to be involved. had to be involved in this operation. the united states is part of the alliance. i think this operation probably could have gone more efficiently if the united states had been a full partner throughout the operation. but it probably could not have been pulled off without the united states being in the role it played. there are levels of objectives and strategies. there have been at some particularly strong divisions in europe. @ think there are real implications to that. the key take away for the

alliance -- libya did not disprove the gates of's message. thank god the alliance is a unique position to respond to unique circumstances, calling for an intervention in libya, been able to muster a vote for the resolution 1973. these are significant. thank god the alliance was able to play the role it did play. the current that the alliance design means the allies would not be able to do said. libya was custom-made for an alliance operation. it is not even an option for europeans and thinking about yemen or syria. that said, it was a success. it has been successful so far for the alliance, and largely

because of the leadership from our european allies. i think americans will realize that. >> thank you, damon. i would like to bring you into this discussion, frank, get your thoughts on what this means tornado's future. i would also like to get your opinion on the will of the united states and what it might mean for u.s. leadership of the alliance, and particularly the significant defense budget cuts looming in the future. i think there are big questions about the grand strategy level that would love your views on, how the united states thinks about its own role in the world, and lastly how affect how the alliance thinks. in june, there were concerns

that the united states was abandoning europe. >> that meet start with agreeing with everything damon said. i want to agree with that. but i want to talk about a different aspect. with respect to libya, in all candor, i would not have gone there in the first place. we toppled a dictator, but there are worse dictators in the world. we do not know who will succeed him. we do not know what policies the new regime will push ahead. we can help those policies will be constructive. but we have no assurances. the second point, after the

experiences of iraq and afghanistan, i hope we have a plan to ensure a transitional government will emerge without chaos. if any boots on the ground should be necessary, they should not be american or european. but i doubt we have a plan to prevent the descent into chaos. i hope the transitional government is able to manage that. third, i hope the lesson that this operation has taught the world, a lesson which is particularly ironic given the flagship policies of this administration is do not give up your weapons of mass destruction . i worry about that. i worry about that a lot. but that is not the question.

from an american standpoint, i believe the administration made two major leadership mistakes which are haunting it now. and will haunted in the future. having decided that nato should intervene militarily, we should not have held back ourselves. i do not know whether any of you remember the documentary made about the battle of gettysburg 10 or 15 years ago. there's a particular scene on the second day where lee says "i do not want you to close to the front, general. i cannot afford to lose to."

and he says, "generally, you cannot lead from behind." -- general lee, you cannot leave from behind." my own experience comes from three decades at work. nato functions best when the united states leads, when united states is fully involved. in my judgment, and my judgment does not count, the administration broke this golden rule. our standing among our allies has fallen as a result. the allies' confidence in united states has been reduced. the second major and fundamental mistake which i believe the administration made prefers it to the use of our american combat forces.

-- refers to the use of our american combat forces. those here with me that share the burden of 10 long years, and here we go into libya and we put caveats on the use of u.s. military forces. this sets a precedent for allies in the future to say, and i think it is tremendously damaging. i have read kirk volcker's peace and i know many of you have. for the first time in its history, nato adopted the un mission, not its own, and that mission was simply the protection, the prevention of

civilian deaths resulting in extremely long campaign -- resulting in an extremely long campaign. i think there is a difference between the alliance being involved -- alliance members being involved in a war with the coalition of the willing, the alliance being involved as the alliance. the alliance goes in. again, i think it is all i can. i will come back to that. underscoreign did the paucity of hialeah and advanced weapons in the arsenals of our allies. thankfully we had sufficient stocks and we were able to help them up.

on one hand, the inclusion of non-nato members in a nato operation, sweden and uae was really a huge success. and damon pointed out, nato's role in managing the campaign there is no substitute for nato as a military capability in the euro-atlantic sphere. the eu does not come close. naida was approved extension -- nato was proved essential. the uk, having made the decision to get rid of the carrier's months before, had to stretch the capability of its coronate no force, but did so in a way that contributed to the combat

operations. i think today and in the future, nino is more important than ever, and i think u.s. leadership in nato is more important than ever. we have fairly significant strains within the most successful lives in history. and i would say unless these strains are confronted and result, then the alliance is in jeopardy. we really must fix the fact that not all nations who are alliance members understand that it is a one for all, all for one alliance. we have seen the emergence of policy in a -- polity in a nato

context where nations are opting out. and the tension between -- i hate to use the rumsfeldian phrase -- the difference between the outlook between the original members of the alliance and those who are feeling more and there is concern between the older members and you were members whether they really understand article roman 5. i think that was exacerbated in this campaign. -- i think the answer depends on whether we in washington assert our leadership role and whether

we can work with other allied leaders in other major countries to remember what the alliance was all about and actually to get them to understand what the strategic concept they signed up to only 10 months ago really means. >> thank you very much, frank. and number of questions i am sure the audience will want to address when we return to the discussion. but first, i wanted to address the next question -- with respect to libyan intervention has implications for european leadership within the alliance also. i would like you to address that, and in a corollary of fashion, what do these events mean for european security policy? germany played a significant role in the run-up to this operation. in received a lot of attention

-- it received a lot of attention on resolution 93. absence of poland and other central european nations in the actual operation in libya -- a question would be, do you perceive germany adopting a more assertive role in a post- khaddafi libya it? in part due to the mission itself? and my that enabled the eu to utilize civilian assets in helping libya build a functional states. >> thank you very much. allow me a general remark.

we are addressing the future of nita. i think the libyan case is showing us it serves as a to share the shortcomings in the transatlantic alliance. we should take it as that, a learning experience, to learn from that. it makes no sense to go back and say what went wrong and if we should have gone in there? we should be positive at the moment and say it was a successful operation. nato has proven there is no alternative the horizon before it. and it proved it was able to execute such a mission, period.

nothing different can be said. when it comes to the european union, it has to be clear that germany has had a leadership vacuum in the last three years when it comes to security policy issues. right at the moment when the europeans are forced to take a position with the americans on libya, there is that leadership vacuum. everyone else would take the same thing as the french president said christie -- sarkozy. your senior readjustment of the powers that pull the trigger -- we are seeing the adjustment of the powers that pulled the trigger when it comes to security issues. the other lessons we have seen regarding the european union is, the european union -- it has not

been the intention of the european union. the intention is to support nato in its efforts. we have seen that over the last couple of weeks. they have provided 200 million u.s. dollars for the transitional council for measures that need to be taken in the next months to come. first and foremost, the european union will always take the civilian side and not answered the security force. mcalester germany, unfortunately i have bad news -- when it comes to germany, unfortunately i have bad news. the security academy in berlin, he was acknowledging that

germany and its allies made msitakes, but it indicated germany is against boots on the ground in libya in the months to come. the first panle drafted a new resolution for a new peace corps in libiya. but he also said he hopes no one will ask for german troops in libiya. [laughter] then that is a perfect indication of where german politics is going right now.

the former german chancellor helmut kohl cannot -- came out this week where he was criticized very openly. he was criticized by the leader of his own party, the christian democrats. i think helmut kohl is expressing the frustration within his own party, the ruling party, the christian democrats, as well as the german public who are saying, you cannot have it all, i you know? with size and economic%, comes responsibility. we are germany. we are not switzerland. we are part of the european union. we are part of nato. you have to pay tribute to the responsibilities that come with

membership. the majority of the german government has been against the u.n. resolution 1973, there would've been no danger to the allies in the security council. this decision will haunt us for not only the next six months, but for years to come. given the statement the german defense minister made in berlin, i am really skeptical that german politics is able and willing to change course in the months to come. we will probably provide more assistance when it comes to the reconstruction, the

to release that, to support the european union. in their efforts. a line sooner or later. my foundation, my foundation has put on -- we call this a transformation partnership where we are seeing every transmission or country in the region is different. our proposal is to get three countries from the european union. to get them to form an advisor body. they are advising the transmission council. also to set up -- to monitor the

financial resources to provide for the first panel discussed, clear transparency when it comes to the money distribution in the country. we're discussing this in berlin as well as on the level of the european union at the moment. for now we will turn to the audience. in the first row. thanks for a really good panel. i would like to ask to related questions on the basis that nato has been in the crossroads and nato is always dying. what has been lacking so far is the overarching ghost of this -- at this table. the dire economic situation. even if libya were to disintegrate into chaos, which

it probably will, the economic realities will be much more powerful. i wonder if the panel might speculate on the gravity of those economic realities and what implications that will have tornado. including further reductions in defense spending. you mentioned germany which is going through an extraordinary reform program. my next question is to fry. we will revitalize nato. who is the "we"? we are looking to downplay it. there is a tendency to look further to the east. i think the nato alliance has been exposed rather dramatically in terms of contradictions that libya has made worse. who is the power behind revitalizing? i do not see any there there.

>> the first question of dramatic resources -- reduced resources. who was going to lead in this environment. any comments from the panel? that was fantastic. we would be so lucky to have your views resonating throughout europe right now. i made a quick reference. i want to underscore again. it was astounding that france and the u.k. and europe muster the political will and resources to undertake this operation and the -- in the context of such a serious crisis we are facing. and the future of the euro. that is the premise that makes

me get a pat on the back. to do this despite the dire circumstances before them. that said, this is a scary circumstance. this is what is happening to the european budget. it has the potential to get the alliance. secretary-general rasmussen has been responding with a series of defense ands -- defenses. between small military, the defense treaty, one key example of how european allies are trying to navigate the shoals of this paucity of resources. very few european governments -- you can point to estonia.

estonia does not carry the weight of the alliance in this regard. the brits have made an effort in thinking about their defense cuts, to imagine a future where the introductory comes back up in terms of spending to reinvest in defense. they have a downward trajectory there remains downward or static. that is a recipe for neutering the alliance and in sharing not only will we need to withdraw from afghanistan, perhaps a bit more rapidly than anticipated as we're already seeing decisions in paris. it takes off the table the ability to do something like libya in the future. -- the near term. if libya does not become a catalyst to agree consider these decisions in the near term out years, we are headed for more serious crises within the alliance and not because of international events, because of

international decision making. >> thank you for putting the question on the table. it is important to realize we often have the tendency to discuss issues in an isolated way. i would argue strongly when it comes to any security engagement to take libya as a test case, defining parameters are provided by the economic and financial situation in the u.s. and europe. every single dollar we are spending, europeans and americans somewhere abroad is seen under the lands of the unemployment rate in europe and the u.s.. if you take that countries like spain you will see young people marching on the street. the recent unemployment rate between 45%, this is ridiculous.

it is amazing. this is defining foreign policy arena for the leaders in europe and the foreign-policy arena is narrowing by the fact that we're going through these hard economic times and at times we will be tougher in the next months and years to come. having said that, i expect even more defense cuts on the side of the european union. if you take on an average since the end of the cold war, all the european countries on their defense budget an average of 20%. germany is modernizing its army but it will not be enough. in order to get ready for the security challenges of the 21st century. what concerns us here in the u.s. as well as here, is the war fatigue.

where we see our political leaders not able to make the argument in front of their constituency any more. why we still need to get engaged in places like iraq, afghanistan, or libya right now. whenever the next case comes out and it will probably be syria and another place in the world, there is no capital to make the case for any kind of military intervention anymore. that should concern us. >> let me start by endorsing david's endorsement of the future chancellor. in this analysis of german politics, let me jump off of that point. while the economic situation is

indeed serious, i do not think it is the root cause of the problem we face. we have always gone through the decade of europe. we have all been there. but i think this is a serious time. it is a particularly serious time. there are some governments that are willing to openly break with the alliance. and -- which are willing to pursue almost 19th century beggar thy neighbor politics to advance narrow internal domestic political goals at the expense of alliance solidarity. the decision of the cdu and fdp to seek to evict nuclear weapons in from germany and bring the

dutch and belgians along with them had nothing to do with economics. it had nothing to do with security fears of the new members. and had nothing to do with the moral obligation to allow the rest of alliance the same private protection that was extended to germany during the cold war. it had nothing to do with economics. it had nothing to do with economics. i think we are facing a question of do people believe what nato is all about. the decision to block nato contingency planning to conduct defense of allies on the periphery. it had nothing to do with economics. it has everything to do with do you believe what nato is supposed to be about? the first of the three tasks --

it is a political crisis. the economic crisis could present opportunity. one of my mentors -- said that nations act -- every state has to have military forces. in a time of tightening budgets, it is time for an neda army. and the danes giving up the submarine force. what does neda have to do to have territorial defense? what does nato have to do to

have expeditionary capabilities. 10 or 15 years ago it was out of business. that has flipped back around. this is a waste of money. they do not want to add significantly to the fight. and to states without nato, it is not going to make a difference. whether that opportunity has been grasped, i do not know. who is the way? i do not know. i hope that one of the lessons they are drawing from this operation, we need to get more involved in leading this alliance. it is informing objectives and moving in that next direction.

i only hope that people are taking a serious look at what we are getting and what we have created. that is the question. >> neda has been that many crossroads over its history. it is different from the previous so-called crises of leadership. i think it will lead to unfortunately situation -- a situation very soon when questions of military contingencies come up, there will be a lack of u.s. will and a very significant lack of european capability to do anything. that will create a real crisis. next question? >> [inaudible] which is -- without spending.

the uk [inaudible] are we going to get these in a concert, is that where you get the spending? >> i do not agree with your characterization of the policy. i believe it at that. any other thoughts? yes? >> how do you respond to the critics that said when nato was created to defend nations -- [unintelligible] or others, and now we are

involved in other wars. why are we involved in libya? [unintelligible] >> i will take a first shot at it. the funds -- defines the core mission which is to protect the territorial integrity of the alliance. that is true. but the alliance is a living, breathing entity with new interests that adjust to the times in which it exists. 2011 is not 1949. there is the strategic concept,

the statement of policy for the alliance that was signed in november of 2010. the document agreed to buy -- by all the leaders of the 28 nations. it talks about the need to ensure stability and to ensure that and agreed to. >> this also applies to nato and nato members who are members of the united nations. on a broader level, i would say that when you take a case like libya, it was in a way necessary for europe and the

u.s. to take a step back and to think what we are standing for right now. because what was said about german politics is true for the elastic alliance. over the last year of all these wars, we lost what we're standing for. even if the concept of democracy was burned, it was still the case that this atlantic alliance stands for democracy and free-market economy around the world. whenever we see forces in a country that want to [unintelligible] with that and who have been undermined in their efforts to do so, we as the west have the responsibility to support them in a diplomatic way. also as a last resort in a military way. >> yes, ambassador? >> former colleague of two of

the panel. >> i called my boss. >> this conversation is much too gloomy for my taste. you would think that nato had just failed in libya. all right? the problem -- there are the gloomy arguments. accept them followed by a "but," i am going to try to undercut them. >> the oldest trick in the boat. >> there is a serious problem of an inward looking tendency on both sides of the atlantic. we see it in isolation as some -- isolationism. we see it across the board and

german policy as well. that is a real problem. neda just succeeded in libya. it did not fail. it succeeded despite all the problems which were well outlined. those problems existed and they are serious. my conclusion is if nato can do this and succeed, given all these handicaps, just thinks how better off we would be with one-third of those problems. i do think in policy terms, where do we go from here and what to do? the obvious answer is the nato summit in chicago in may is a

point at which they they can draw the right lessons from libya and avoid the wrong ones. i will finish with a historical analogy. nato's first military operation which was kosovo. also not a five minute mission. every day that operation went on, someone on panels like this said, nato is failing, it is a catastrophe. that went on every single day until the date nato succeeded. nato was a success in coast about did not solve the problem. that was left to the next administration and the problems are still there. it succeeded as much as nato will succeed or any policy ever succeeds in the real world. now. not make the mistake looking ahead after the success of the incoming bush

administration which looked out the problems that the operation revealed. instead of fixing them, turn their back on nato for the initial period. it took the a administration several years to work out. you see my point. let's not draw the wrong conclusions and get in the familiar panel cycle of despair. a few days after oneto had succeeded. >> you pull the second classic bureaucratic trek. to read characterize what i had said. and what other said. no one up here said it was a

failure. we said it was a success. my concerns have nothing to do with the operation. my concerns have to do with the structural integrity of the alliance, with the future of an alliance where significant governments have divergent views of what the core mission is and with the failure of the american government, once we decide that neda should engage in military operations, to engage fully. and do exemplify the leadership throughout your career, the leadership that the u.s. has to perform in the alliance. i think for this operation, we abdicated that. it is not gloom and doom. we ought to learn from that. we should not do it again. if we do it again, i will start the gloom and doom song but i did not today. >> i want to add two points.

a tribute to my former boss. you are spot on. i worked for -- in the wake of kosovo. the defense minister played a major role. we spent most of his term trying to beat back the myth of kosovo as a failure. cosell was were by khomeni and nato is broken and inefficient and could not work. kosovo was nato's first military operation. there is some confusion about how to do targeting. there was political involvement and it was fixed. on the third day of a operation. we are thinking about libya. we have not had any kind of drama in terms of handling the libyan operation. the wrong weapons cast a shadow over the alliance for years.

work by committee which we fixed. it is not really right. key thing, then opportunity that chicago provides, second, chicago is convenient. the u.s. is the host. whether we like it or not, we are owning the summit. the compels u.s. leadership as the host for the summit. and it cannot walls and to a nato summit as the host without a game plan, without a degree of leadership. you cannot waltz into a nato summit as the host without a game plan, without a degree of leadership. the lessons will draw out of libya. >> i have a three. response. the world has allot more messier and uncertain threats all over

demandrld and this will to min the united states's attention. there was a 10% or 33% reduction in the defense budget. neda should conduct another strategic review and scale back its strategy. it still focuses at a area when it will have limited capabilities to do operations of significant scale, even within its own neighborhood. yes? >> i wanted to ask you a question. a little bit more about the side of the transatlantic relationship from the military side. what lessons can we learn about engaging with odious dictatorships. gaddafi was one of the most bizarre dictators, which brought

back into the fold when he met some conditions in two theaters and three -- 2003 and 2007. will help to bomb him out of power. thinking back to the debates where the presidential debates, should we isolate dictatorships, canaway form partnerships with them, are there lessons we can learn from libya or other arab countries about how we can move forward either engaging or not engaging dictatorships? >> very good question. the latest events in the arab world have shown us that every country is different of course. military intervention should always be the last resort. there are cases where you need to engage with a brutal dictator for a certain time. we are facing syria right now. it is unthinkable we can come to

any kind of further development in syria without also having in direct channels to assaad and his advisers right now and talk with them. this is always the case. you also need to communicate that to a certain extent to your public. in order to avoid any kind of misinterpretations on that side, i would say. >> you asked a compelling and tough question. when she was answering the question about our interests, if you step back from nato, what is the purpose here? we are a community because we share the values and interests of free-market democracy that bind us together. i think if you think about how that applies in our international relationships and the engagement, there are times we will have to do deals and business with odious folks that exist in the world. the reality that we are

accepting and the transformation in the middle east as half -- helping us _, a long term interests are served by our long-term values. they are served by seeing norms of democracy, free-market, the universality of these norms take root. so that when we have the opportunity to play a supporting role in these transit -- transactions, to support that, that is a long-term way to think about things. it does not mean we do not have to face the reality of dealing with certain government and certain regimes. there is the reality of how we have to manage things. the reliance we have had in the middle east tells us it was not a very good security policy. that is -- we're trying to pull

back the discourse about democracy promotion. that is one of the most important things to take away. what we're facing right now in the middle east and north africa is truly a historic challenge to the atlanta community and the question facing this community, do we have the political will, the resources, and the capability to play the right supporting role, to support change in a way that it will serve our values and interest every time? >> i think it is important to realize we should manage expectations when it comes to our engagement in the arab world. we often discuss these cases like, one day revolution, the other day democracy. it is not working out like that. this is a long-term transformation process. this is a good role model that indicates that the people who are in government have not been peace activists of the first

hour. we are always dealing with people who have a certain history which is probably a question of all, to say the least. that we need to deal with in these kind of transformation processes. you do not need to be a profit to realize what has happened in the arab world will continue. that this region will be an area of extreme instability, probably civil war, outbreaks throughout the next years. that means for us, first and foremost, we have to come forward with a concept, who takes care of these little fires that we will see over the next couple of months and years to come in the region? it was said on the first panel, this is our direct neighborhood. this is our playground of

strategic interests. we need to have a strategic plan how we engage in this region and who will be our interlocutors. i think the chicago meeting of nato will be the perfect opportunity to address these questions with our american allies. this will be our problem area for the years to come. this can be our next afghanistan i would say on a broader scale for europeans and americans. >> i agree completely with what you have said. i think you have to ask yourselves mother questions. are we going to engage with dictators? autocrats, totalitarians, we're going to be engaging with a lot of them. the four months -- the more fundamental question you're asking, are we prepares to use

force if diplomacy or if necessary, military force to overturn regimes which are dictatorial and i would say to you that requires a national debate, whether it is the jeffersonian, where liberty is, there are my. or, it is ok, but i am not going to get involved. with the economic structures that are placed on us and the world wariness of the last 10 years, i doubt a national debate is going to say that we're going to be prepared except in extraordinary cases to use american military force or to ask the alliance to use military force to overturn evil, despotic regimes or even totalitarian ones. >> i agree with all those points but would add that we should have a more coherent policy in the transatlantic community on

the use of the broad range of civilian instruments that we could use in a much more strategic fashion to make it clear to those who share our values and live in a region that presents the greatest source of terrorist threats to the transatlantic community that we're on their side and we are not as hypocritical as some would make us out to be. time for one last brief question. can i see your hand? >> i wanted to go back to the point on political will. i do not think we will be able to make the case for another intervention. you cannot make that case for military intervention until you have to intervene. talking about libya, we made the case and we have the responsibility to protect argument. if syria gets ugly, how do we avoid double standards? the only thing we can do it.

if we can go into syria but we decide not to, we have a bigger problem. we can use the capacity, we're not going to do it in this case, how do you explain that? or do we just not going to syria and put it out on the table? the political will is a tricky argument. sometimes i would say after afghanistan, i would not have seen the vehicle into nato until we have to. what is going to happen if syria gets ugly? >> you are right. i mean in a way, you can also say there is no difference between libya and syria. innocent people have been killed on the streets of syria. children have been slaughtered on the streets. you can make a case for military intervention. we also know that syria is with libya when it comes to the capacity to thof the west to

intervene militarily. we have to speed up in whatever way we can, first and foremost like with turkey. we have the best channels, germany as well. we have kept open channels to the opposition forces over the years to see if there is any kind of diplomatic solution possible right now. this is the only possibility i can think of at the moment. nobody is thinking that military intervention is feasible. and if possible, when it comes to the political will of europe and the u.s. >> i wanted to thank all my panelists for a very interesting, very provocative, and very important discussion we hope will catalyze a debate which is just beginning here and in other capitols around the world. thank you very much.

[applause] >> road to the white house coverage continues tonight with three republican presidential candidates in iowa. rick perry and congressman ron paul and thaddeus mckotter attended the iowa state fair grounds picnic. you can see that tonight on c- span. starting at a 30 p.m. eastern, on c-span2, henry kissinger on

his new book. also a debate between pacifists and the supporting the war. at 10:40 p.m., paul allen on "idea man," his recent book. ireland's prime minister criticized the catholic church last month over allegations of mishandled child sexual abuse cases between 1996 and 2009. he accused the vatican of downplay the issues to protect its power and reputation. we will show you the first hour of this debate. it took place with members in the lower house of parliament. ireland's lower house of parliament.

>> ireland is perhaps unshockable when it comes to the abuse of children. for the first time in this country it reported child sexual abuse, exposes an attempt by the holy see to frustrate an inquiry as little as three years ago. the report excavates the dysfunction, that this connection, the elitism that dominated the culture of the vatican today. the rape and torture of children were downplayed or managed to uphold instead the primacy of the institution, its power, it's standing, and its reputation.

from listening to evidence of humiliation and betrayal, with the year of the heart. the reaction was to parse and analyzed with the eye of a lawyer. this is the polar opposite of the radicalism and humility and compassion upon which the roman church was founded. the radicalism, the humility, and the compassion which are the essence of its foundation and its purpose. being a case of -- nothing could be further than the truth. the revelations are heartbreaking. it described how many victims continued to live in the small towns and parishes in which they were reared and which they were

abused. their abuser often stayed in the area and still held in regard by their families and communities. the abusers continued to officiate at family weddings and funerals. in one case, the abuser officiated at the victim's own wedding. there is little but i or any in this house consider -- can say to comfort that victim or others, however much we might want to. we can recognize the bravery and courage of the victims who told their stories to the commission. it will take a long time for them to recover. it could take the victims and their families alive time to pick up the pieces of their shattered existence if ever they do.

[unintelligible] the archbishop was clear on two things. the gravity of the actions and the attitude of the holy see. they undertook to present the report to the vatican. i believe the irish people including the very many faithful catholics who, like me, have been shocked and dismayed by the repeated failings of church authorities to face up what is required, what is deserved and require confirmation from the vatican that they do except, and doors, and require compliance by all church authorities here with the obligation to report all cases of suspected abuse to

the states authorities in line with a children's first national guidance which will have the force of law. they are unwilling or not able to address the horros. -- horrs. -- worse. this must be devastating. august striving to keep their humanity. as they work hard to be the keepers of the church's lights and goodness within their parishes. thankfully for them and for us, this is not room. -- rome. nor is this a school.

this is the republic of ireland, 2011. the republic of laws, of rights and responsibilities, of proper -- where the delinquency and arrogance of a particular version, of a particular kind of morality will no longer be tolerated or ignored. as a practicing catholic, i do not say any of this easily. growing up, many of us in here learned that we were part of a pilgrim church. today, that church needs to be a penitent church. a church truly and deeply panted for the horrors it perpetrated, it hit, and it denied. in the name of god, but for the

good of the institution. we're putting children first. those who have been abused might take some small comfort in knowing they belong to a nation, to a democracy of humanity, power, rights, and responsibilities, enshrined and enacted always for their good. where the law, their law as citizens of this country will always supersede canon law. this report tells the tale of a brazen disregard for protecting children. if we do not respond swiftly and appropriately as the state, we will have to prepare ourselves for more reports like this.

i agree with the bishop that if the church needs to publish any other and all other reports like this as soon as possible. i must note the commission is positive about the work of the national board for safeguarding children. established by the church to oversee the operation by the diocese and religious orders. they note of church authorities will be required to sign a contract with the national board agreeing to implement relative standards -- relevance standards and those refusing to sign would be named in the annual report. progress has been in no small measure to the commitment of feehan elliott and others. there is some small comfort to be drawn but the fact the commission is complementary of the efforts made by the diocese since 2008 in vetting personnel and training and the risk

management of priests against allegations -- against whom allegations have made. the behavior of fish micki -- bishop mcgee shows how fragile standards are. if the vatican needs to get an order, so does the state. the commission is critical of the entire unsatisfactory position in which the last government allowed to persist over many years. the unseemly bickering between the minister for children and the hsc over the jurisdiction, the failure to produce legislation to enable the exchange of soft information as promised and the long period of confusion and this joint

responsibility for child protection as reported by the commission are simply not acceptable to mate nor in a society which values children and their safety. for too long, ireland has neglected some of its children. last week we saw case of the torture of children within the family come before the courts. two days ago, we were repulsed by the case of the donegal sex offender. children and young adults reduced to human wreckage. raising questions and issues of serious import for state agencies. we are set to embark on a course of action, to ensure the state is doing all it can to safeguard our children. the minister is bringing forward to pieces of legislation to make it an offense to withhold the

information relating to crimes against children and vulnerable adults. and to allow for the exchange of soft information. i want to do all i can to protect the sacred space of childhood. and to restore its innocence. especially our young teenagers. regardless of our economic crisis, the children of this country are and always will be our most precious possession of all. safeguarding their integrity and their innocence must be a national priority. that is why i am undertook to create a cabinet ministry for children and youth affairs. the legislation, children first, proposes to give our children maximum protection and security without intruding on the hectic business of being a

child. father joseph ratzinger bellair said standards of conduct appropriate to civil society and the workings of democracy cannot be purely and simply applied to the church. as the holy see prepares its considered response to the report, i want to make it clear that when it comes to the protection of the children of this state, the standards of conduct which the church deems appropriate to itself cannot and will not be applied to the workings of democracy and civil society in this republic. not purely or simply or otherwise because children have to be put first. thank you. >> i am sharing my time in relation to this debate and it

is appropriate that the motion before the house is signed by a group leaders. the only acceptable reaction to this report is a unity between us all, to condemn the actions it exposes, support the victims, and affirm our joint commitment to action. the report is very moving. communities have been affected by this abuse. there are stronger. it communities with a great spirit. they have vibrant sports clubs. the church has played a significant role and has been respected by people of faith and the wider community. the fact contained in this report showing a different picture of the catholic church. abusers were allowed to use their status as clergy to carry out the most appalling crimes. the church showed a callous

disregard for the safety and rights of the most vulnerable members of its flock. this was done not simply to avoid scandal. it went much further and involved a willful refusal to respect basic morals and legal responsibilities. the abuse of children should never take place but where does, simple humanity requires swift and resolute intervention. you do not need regulations to understand this fundamental morality. legal sanctions have been in place for a long time. no person within any organization, be it public or private, has any excuse for not knowing exactly what to do when there is even a generous suspicion of child abuse. the intervention of church authorities in undermining top

protection rules in recent years is nothing short of an outrage and a trail of those who look to them for moral leadership. when the evidence of their failure to fix -- is exposed, the reaction has given little assurance the understand the scale and depth of the outrage felt by ordinary people. this is not something that can be dismissed by the secular elite. most of the strongest views i have heard are coming from people who have great faith in the spiritual teachings of the church. in my meeting last year with thcommittee clear that the irish state expected the vatican's full cooperation in the investigation into abuse in the diocese. and i and other investigations. the focus on the institutional interests of the church -- also

shielded by its leaders is unacceptable. we continue to -- it will continue to cause damage. we should acknowledge the stand of some leaders especially archbishop martin. the church will retain a place of importance in our society. the ryan report exposed in great detail the systematic brutalization and exploitation of many children for many decades. it showed what is probably the darkest chapter in our history as an independent state. thousands of children who have the right to expect their state to protect and nurture them or be used in the most appalling ways within mostly turks controlled institutions. what this report has done is to show how the problem of abuse

and cover-up is not just the concern of the past. it is not something anyone can be complacent about. the ryanne report emerged because of a brave group of survivors who were determined to get justice and support healing. i met many of them before and after i propose the establishment of the commission of inquiry. the survivors of these institutions have been refused access for a number of years. it was only the documentary at the time but they had been denied any response from the state. i admire very much their courage

in their commitment and their continued commitment and integrity to many survivors. y, many survivors. i also initiated the first inquirey -- inquiry. and george did an outstanding report after that. dublin and of course now cline. the significant of cline is of course that many of the victims of the abuse outline in that report how much younger and in many cases only beginning to come to terms with the abuse which they have suffered. it is right to thank the commission for carrying out a difficult assignment with both sensitivity. i welcome the general measures which proposed for dealing in the outcome of the report. we should be thorough and fast.

equally where there's a need for farther forensic investigations particularly in relation to other diocese, they should be carried out. >> just over eight minutes there. >> i want to endorse the motion and the words of the prime minister. the motion and the report are sending a very strong message of support to those who suffered abuse. however, in this occasion there's an even stronger message offer condemnation to those who perpetrated the abuse. and the sfrongest message should be directed at those who covered up the abuse and covered up the management of it. those in the vatican, those in cline and those elsewhere. those in full knowledge of the horrendous impact arising from previous cases and disclosures and happening within their own organization are in their own area, they pro seeded with contempt for survivors and

victims, contempt for their own church for those who are member of their church. contempt on the cases of the vatican. and ultimately a shared contempt for the truth. contempt for the foundation is in one name and in one name only, the protection of friends, colleague, a protection given an offer at any cost, the cost of victims and survivors to the cost of the church and ultimately to the cause of the truth. we have had all sorts of emotion to the ryan report. we express similar sentiments. we express emotions to it. the most shocking thing is that we are here at all. cline isn't something that happened 50 or 60 years ago in a different time. cline covers -- this report covers how abuse allegations

were handled from 1996 to 2009. and the report is very explicit and says that the greatest failure by the diocese of cline was the failure to report all complaints. between 1996 and 2009, there were 15 complaints which were very clearly should have had a report from the diocese. this was only 15 years ago. this report covers the post firms report. the same report found the bishop at that time placed the interest of individual priests ahead of those in the community. and yet, we now know that this practice continued and the murphy report is showing us it was the practice in the diocese for a 30-year period. as fitzgerald said last week,

we cannot say with certainly that the same is not flew every other diocese in the country. we need that certainty. victims and survivors need that certainty to get the peace they deserve. this country at this stage needs a certainly in order for us to move on. and the vast majority of priests were members of the church. we must ensure that the 24 church diocese is published in september. the church will get its act together and finalize its orders and shortly at this stage given the amount of time, it's not too much to ask that that ought to be published by the owned of this year. publication will allow us for the first time to see the real scale of the abuse situation throughout the country. and it's only then that we'll be able to begin the process of moving on.

the manner in which it continued is truly appalling. the response to the vatican to the framework document can only be described as unsupport especially to reporting to authority. and for report again, those were not interested earlier in the protection of children. this response from the vatican was more interested in the protection of friends and colleagues at the expense of children, an approach endorsed by the vatican. we are exactly one week since publication of this report and the vatican is still to issue a formal response. the only response given is by a spokesman this morning said there's nothing given to encourage bishops to break irish laws.

he said that the vatican's advice our child and protection policies could not be interpreted as an invitation to cover up abuse. let's remind what the congregation told the bishop to their framework. they said that the framework was not an official document but merely a storied document. it contained procedures and dispositions that could invalidate it to put a stop. these are the most damning lines. if these procedures were to be followed, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental by those in authority. but what about the children that were affected by this? there's no indication of any concern of the vatican. while the vatican might not have encouraged bishops to

break the law, they certainly encouraged them to put the reputation of the church before the protection of its children. they're more worried about the damage of embarrassment and the damage of abuse. how many other diocese did they interfere with in the manner. we need to ascertain this. it may be to look to do this in their orders because we really can't believe that any other order is coming unless it's the truth. the response will come before us at the committees. i propose that consideration be considered to establishing a joint committee in order to deal with this -- on a both committee basis. i welcome the indication that we with held information in crimes against children in

september. maybe minutes were given from the discussion that developed around this particular bill in the last few days. we might use august for some element of consultation around it. so the people may have a chance to put forward their views maybe to the joseph committee in a matter that is strictly adheres to the legislation. i did see a commitment that we might have a legislation by the end of this month. if we did it would be possible for a consultation. i want to acknowledge the efforts you made in addressing the backlog in this since your appointment. but the work that you're doing addressing the backlog enlighting us with this bill then unfortunately, our ambition will amount to nothing unless we deal with the resource issues there. we cannot again gather under another report to express or